Comment by shye
1 day ago
Unionization shouldn't be seen as an emergency measure. Even if I would hypothetically accept union as a last resort, which I don't, safety nets should be built not only when you are speeding towards the ground, and often lack the resources, but much before that, when you are safe.
> safety nets should be built not only when you are speeding towards the ground, and often lack the resources, but much before that, when you are safe
Safety nets cost time and resources to build and come at the cost of agility. They shouldn’t be avoided at all costs. But a foundation in an industry where unions aren’t the norm taking that step can correctly be interpreted as a sign management fucked up. Given the foundation’s recent actions, that hypothesis is sustained here.
Unions are a normal thing to happen to guarantee a check of balances, we are used to systems they have their feedback loop, if you have a one sided relationship you cannot have balance because one side will always try to push in their direction.
The tug between management and unions is the balance.
If you consider that safety is something that is impeding, you have never truly worked at scale nor considered what happens when accident happens, safety is to ensure continuous, painless operation, not impede it and is a baseline condition for trust which is essential to move fast.
> Unions are a normal thing to happen
Most jobs on the planet are non-union. Most jobs historically are non-union. Describing that as “a normal thing” ignores the amount of effort they take to erect and maintain.
> The tug between management and unions is the balance
The fundamental tug is between capital and labour. Management intermediates, normally, capital. (Owner managers are the exception.) Labour can be intermediated by agents and/or unions, though they’re far from “normal.” (More common is owner-management of labour, e.g. in small trades.)
> If you consider that safety is something that is impeding
Straw man.
Or it can be seen as a sign of an industry that's maturing
There are so many reasons being in a union is beneficial.
Developers should consider the likelihood of even modest efficiency gains from AI, along with a naturally cooling job market, cratering labor demand in software. Every shred of cushiness and every dollar above average in your paychecks is because you’re in a high-demand field, but it’s been that way so long that many developers have mistaken that for some sort of inherent specialness. Companies don’t pay people what they’re worth, they pay people what they’ll work for. If the demand for developer labor goes away, people that are as-or-more qualified than you will do your job for a lot less, and your employer will hire them and kick you to the curb. Being an ‘AI engineer’, unless you’ve got an advanced degree in ML or something, is no safety net. If you can make the transition from ‘developer’ to ‘fancy AI orchestrating developer’ in a few months, so can a lot of other people, and they’ll be looking for jobs.
The leverage might already be diminished enough to make unionization impossible in many places, but it’s certainly not going to get any easier. Consider it.
My perspective until now was that the Wikimedia foundation was already supposed to be a union-like organization. Would it make sense for Linux maintainers to form a union within the Linux foundation? The vibes feel similar to me.
You thought WikiMedia Foundation were like a union how?
Linux Foundation are a business league. Many Linux maintainers work for Linux Foundation members.